I just finished the Bruce Eckel book, "Thinking in C++, 2nd edition" and just happened to be browsing the CD and found the "End-User License Agreement for Microsoft Software". Since I had never actually read one, I figured now was as good a time as any. Then I found this in there and at first I thought it was a joke but it seems it is on the level.

Quote: 7. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

So like the subject says, do you think that this is overboard or is the world so litigation happy it is needed?

Its always better to cover your ass,
and ambiguity could end up hurting you in the long run.

So no, I do not believe that EULA are going too far,

That actually makes perfect sense, and today Java IS employed in quite a few of the abovementioned fields.
So if there is some unknown bug in the Java VM which causes a plane to crash, they can claim that hey, we told you in advance not to use Java in planes navigation systems, and if you did it anyway it is your problem, not ours.

I always loved that bit in the Java EULA. Fear not, biomechanical engineers: Brainfuck has no such proscription. Go ahead and stick it in pacemakers!

Welcome to the Joy of Stupid Law Suits.

That's why your insulated cups say: Warning: Pouring extremely hot steaming coffee down your pants will cause severe discomfort.

It's why my Dremel box says This product not intended for use as a dental drill.

It's why my new (very dull) kitchen knife set says Knives are sharp. Do not drop knives.

True enough. I guess from a developers point of view, it is the only good business. At least to protect yourself from any crazy twist someone can come up with. And considering the quote I put up was from a Microsoft product, and how many people would love nothing better than to see MS fail. Good sense.

Another question. Is there a site out there that give examples / templates of general EULA's? Or is it best to get a lawyer when you have something to sell?

Quote: Original post by IronGryphon
Another question. Is there a site out there that give examples / templates of general EULA's? Or is it best to get a lawyer when you have something to sell?

First, get a lawyer when you have something to sell. If you do something really stupid, sign an agreement or fail to get an agreement, you could lose your investment. The most likely issue is that a bigger company might use some contract that prevents you from trying to sell your ideas to another company. Even that one is very unlikely unless you start sending your idea out to other companies for their review.

As far as templates of EULAs, most of it is boilerplate.

I'm not a lawyer, don't take this advice. One lawyer I have talked with a number of times, who is on one of the boards of the Intellectual Property Law Association, has given me some interesting views.

* Almost nobody reads EULAs, and this has been an issue in courts many times.

* Over half of the country (by population) has had appeals courts rule that EULAs for software that has a one-time payment and perpetual license is a sale. They have also ruled that these sales are bound by the normal UCC rules and not contract law. Those rulings affect my area.

* UCC rules for 'merchantability' relate to the quality of similar goods on the market. If your product is of roughly the same quality as other software, they can't really claim your software is unfit for that particular purpose.

* Some state laws and State Supreme Courts have issued rulings different than the Federal Appeals Courts on the legality of EULAs. The most recent cases have been following the trend of "one-time payment with perpetual license and no signed contract is a traditional sale".

* Most EULAs are written to offer more protection to the seller than the UCC provides, and less consumer protection than the UCC offers. So any court ruling on EULA is always going to be at the UCC rules by default.

* Software businesses are very small so you're mostly safe. The 'million dollar lotto' lawsuits are filed against major corporations with lots of money. Even the nasty lawyers won't try to get a suit like that against a tiny company -- they'll be bankrupt from the lawsuits and the plaintiff will never see anything.

So the point of that: Discuss with your lawyer (or a good law professional friend) about the pros and cons of using an EULA or just distributing under normal UCC sales rules.

The advice I follow is: Find a generic EULA that sounds like what you want, and grab a copy. Give customers the remedies of the UCC if they ask. (It really isn't a big deal, basically refunds on demand.) Don't assume any protection from the EULA, assume EULAs will be unenforcable, and work under the normal commercial protections of trademarks, copyrights, the UCC, and disclaimers that you think are important.

If you keep your company very solvent (it's software, that's not hard if your programs are profitable) the worst a disgruntled person could do is sue the business out of business. Although there are ways around the corporate veil, unless you are exteremely wealthy you won't need to worry about somebody trying to do that.

But of course, talk to a lawyer for actual legal advice.

http://www.download.com/EULAlyzer/3003-2086_4-10464851.html

Quote: Original post by frob
It's why my Dremel box says This product not intended for use as a dental drill.

There's nothing wrong with that either.

Infact, many, but not all, dental tools are simply rebranded and / or modified millwright tools. The patent never knows, because they're unfamiliar with those devices.

Quote: Original post by Binomine

Quote: Original post by frob
It's why my Dremel box says This product not intended for use as a dental drill.

There's nothing wrong with that either.

Infact, many, but not all, dental tools are simply rebranded and / or modified millwright tools. The patent never knows, because they're unfamiliar with those devices.

I'm not sure any dentist worth his/her salt will work with an out-of-the-box Dremel.. although saying that, I wouldn't put it past the UK NHS.

I don't think that warning signs/license clauses are going too far, I think the trend for sueing over the most trivial and downright obvious, combined with the almost comedic western legal systems has driven companies to be as paranoid as they are now.